In electrical control circuits and in electrical circuit breakers, thermal responsive controls or actuators may be connected in the lines or in the circuit breaker to open the circuit or circuit breaker in the event of abnormal current conditions and the like. Such thermal overload controls may take a variety of different forms including bimetal elements forming a current conducting contact of a switch or circuit breaker. If the current rises above a selected level, the heating effect on the bimetal element, with well known differences of thermal expansion and contraction of the individual elements, is such as to actuate the switch or the thermal tripping mechanism of the circuit breaker. Electro-mechanical circuit breakers open the electrical current path when the electrical circuits that they protect are conducting excessive current. The duration of opening time, under overload current conditions, is controlled by a bimetallic actuator.
The thermal tripping function of a circuit breaker is dependent on thermal heating which is created during operating conditions if excessive current flows through the circuit breaker. An example of such thermal trip mechanisms is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,614,878 assigned to the assignee of the present invention and is hereby incorporated by reference. The heating causes the bimetal to deflect which in turn causes a mechanical force that will trip the circuit breaker, terminating the excessive current flow. Each circuit breaker must be tested to assure that the tripping times conform with the trip time limits specified in Circuit Breaker Performance Specifications. It is necessary to test the movement of the bimetal element because the deflection versus temperature characteristic within the operating range of the bimetal is very flat. This test is called thermal calibration.
Subjecting the entire circuit breaker to heat in order to test the response of the bimetal mechanism to temperature is impractical because of the presence of other temperature sensitive subcomponents susceptible to overheating, i.e. plastic parts, lubricants, etc., which could lead to the destruction of the circuit breaker. Similarly, direct contact application of heat is too limiting because access to the inner portions of the circuit breaker is oftentimes physically impracticable and always extraordinarily time consuming.
One typical method of thermally calibrating circuit breakers is by injecting a fixed level of electrical current (i) for a given time duration (t). This controlled unit of electrical energy (i.sup.2 t) causes a bimetal deflection, which functionally converts the electrical energy to mechanical energy manifested as a force operating through a distance. The mechanical energy so produced by the bimetal is used to open the circuit breaker's trip release actuator.
The prior art methods of electrical current injection for thermal calibration uses trial and error to identify circuit breakers that have thermal calibration abnormalities. Several failed attempts at such electrical current injection testing must be completed before the breaker can be identified as one that cannot pass the thermal calibration.
The thermal calibration test requires that each circuit breaker be mechanically and electrically connected to a test apparatus and a mechanical test fixture. This requires a human operator to insert and remove the circuit breaker from the test apparatus and fixture. The performance of the actual test, as contrasted to its setup and connection, and to cool the circuit breaker to ambient for retesting takes from thirteen (13) to twenty-six (26) seconds to perform. Repeat testing attempts that are presently performed on circuit breakers that have characteristics that are out of acceptable limits includes resetup time and reconnect time in addition to the actual test time. When setup times, connection times, operator action times and repeated cool to ambient times (approximately two (2) hours between each test) for the retest are summed, the amount of time needed to perform the thermal calibration cycle of tests before a circuit breaker can be identified as one that cannot be thermally calibrated can reach five (5) hours. As is typical in the prior art after three (3) bad tests for a circuit breaker, it is sent for teardown.
Each circuit breaker's electrical to mechanical energy conversion ratio varies slightly from a statistical average or norm. The energy conversion differences between one circuit breaker and a second identical circuit breaker can have many causes. Most are caused by minor electrical resistance changes in the circuit breaker's electrical current path. These variations are small, occur infrequently, and rarely produce a thermal calibration failure of the circuit breaker.
Each circuit breaker's trip release actuator also has a unique release energy (force.times.distance) requirement. The relative differences in the unique trip release actuator energy requirement between one circuit breaker and another identical circuit breaker can be large. The energy required to actuate the trip release actuator of such circuit breakers which sustain a thermal calibration failure is excessive. An unacceptably high level of new assembled circuit breakers can oftentimes sustain a thermal calibration failure.
If a circuit breaker trips during testing but either before a minimum set time or after a maximum set time, an adjustment must be performed and typically involves manually adjusting a screw which will bring the circuit breaker trip mechanism into acceptable operating limits. The calibration adjustment involves changing the position of the applied force, created by the thermal expansion of the bimetal, to that new position which initiates the release of the trip mechanism within the required time. Calibration is performed, for most thermostatic bimetal operated circuit breakers, by such a screw adjustment. Although such a calibration adjustment might appear by the simplicity of its design to be insubstantial, it is a significant step in the manufacture of the circuit breaker without which a failed circuit breaker could not subsequently pass calibration retests and would be discarded. Furthermore, the calibration change adjustment requires an enormous amount of time involving an elapsed test time, the time to perform the adjustment, the time for the circuit breaker to cool down, followed by at least one additional elapsed test time duration. Frequently, during circuit breaker calibration, the above cycle of steps is oftentimes repeated many times thereby driving production costs even higher.
Thus, the thermal calibration test using the electrical current injection method must be repeated after each manual screw adjustment is made to determine if the circuit breaker has been brought into acceptable operating limits. Repeated electrical current injection thermal calibration testing of an as yet unknown mechanically failed electric circuit breaker is obviously a total waste of time of production assets and simply increases costs. The ability to reliably determine and isolate, mechanically failed circuit breakers prior to performing electrical testing of the electromechanical components of the circuit breaker, enhances effective failure analysis, reduces production time testing, and increases cost savings.
To further exacerbate the situation, when a circuit breaker's release actuator requires more mechanical operating energy than that which can be provided within a required time limit by the circuit breaker's bimetal, the circuit breaker cannot be calibrated. Although many conditions can cause the trip release actuator to require such excessive energy, typically they include part s or subcomponents that are out of tolerance, improper lubrication, excessive friction, damaged parts or subcomponents, improper assembly, and unknown or subtle undetectable mechanical factors. Prior art electric current injection calibration processes will not identify those breakers which have these subtle mechanical conditions or anomalies. Accordingly, several failed thermal calibration tests performed in accordance with the prior art electrical current injection calibration processes oftentimes must be completed before it can be concluded that the circuit breaker is not capable of being successfully thermally calibrated. This further increases production costs.
Thus, the determination that any particular circuit breaker which has failed a thermal calibration test is inevitably incapable of being successfully calibrated, presently requires excessive amounts of testing, incurs substantial costs, and involves inordinate amounts of time without any positive benefit.
Thus, if confirmation of the proper functioning/performance of all the mechanical components of the circuit breaker can be achieved early in the production and qualification of the circuit breaker, then the electrical injection test which is used to test and qualify the electrical response of the components of the circuit breaker can be subsequently performed on mechanically confirmed qualified circuit breakers. Any failure to conform to electrical test standards during a subsequent electrical injection test would therefore be indicative of an electromechanical problem to the exclusion of a mechanical problem. The prior art devices and methods to qualify the circuit breaker employ the electrical current injection test to simultaneously perform both the qualification test for the mechanical performance as well as the electromechanical performance of the circuit breaker. Accordingly, the prior art testing methods using current injection are incapable of distinguishing between a mechanical performance problem and an electromechanical performance problem in a failed circuit breaker.
Accordingly, there exists a substantial need for a process which can achieve rapid, effective, and low cost identification of those circuit breakers that are not capable of being thermally calibrated.
Accordingly, there exists a need for a process which avoids the electrical current injecting test to thermally test a circuit breaker bimetallic mechanism.
Accordingly, there exists a need for a process which can test the mechanical performance of a circuit breaker independent of and before any electrical energy test of the mechanical and electrical components of the circuit breaker.
It would thus be an advantage over the prior art to provide a method which will be able to confirm the mechanical performance of the circuit breaker, independent of and prior to conducting any electrical performance test, and to do so without the need for any test or interface hookups.
Accordingly, it would be a further advantage over the prior art to provide a method to increase the production through-put in the manufacture of electrical circuit breakers by qualifying the thermal and mechanical performance of the circuit breaker early in the production of the device.